Discrepancy between scout report and assistant reports

I just bought a few youngsters that my scouts had recommended highly. The scout in question had 17 for judging ability, and 18 for judging potential. The youngsters all had six or seven star potential (for my Dinamo team) from repeated scout reports right before they arrived, but when they did arrive, the same scout (actually my goalkeeping coach) only gives them four or five stars. Why is this?

Did you get just a report card, or scout them for X amount of matches? The more scouting you do, the better idea the scouts will have of them.

Its possible they got a report card, then when they actually watched them and analysed them in training, they weren't as good as previously thought. Quite realistic IMO.

I've got to be honest and say I had no idea what the 'scout matches' thing was there for, so I only ever did report cards. Well, you lives and you learns!

If you want a quick glimpse then the report cards are fine. I can't say there's a great deal of difference, except that when you watch a few games you learn more about the style along with the actual ability. If you just want to see the hidden stats or there's only a day or two left in the transfer window, then use the report card.

Don't worry you're not alone in the whole 'Star Ratings' fiasco.

I've a number of youth players with potential abilities over 185, potentially world-class stars in the making. Yet all of my coaches and scouts (all above 19/19 btw) will not give a single 1 of them more than 4 stars, even though the Report says "has the potential to reach Lionel Messi's ability" etc.

Which is why it's best to use the Report text to judge players, instead of relying on stars alone

Don't worry you're not alone in the whole 'Star Ratings' fiasco.

I've a number of youth players with potential abilities over 185, potentially world-class stars in the making. Yet all of my coaches and scouts (all above 19/19 btw) will not give a single 1 of them more than 4 stars, even though the Report says "has the potential to reach Lionel Messi's ability" etc.

Which is why it's best to use the Report text to judge players, instead of relying on stars alone

Sorry, why would they give more than 4 stars when you have Messi in the same position??

If they gave more stars it would suggest the player would be a lot better than Messi which obviously isn't going to happen.

4 stars = similar to what you already have = excellent in your case.

There's also the fact that nobody will find the next Messi if they are playing rubbish in a poor league. At least from what I find - reputation plays a big part in things.

I'd listen to the scouts over the assistant manager. The scouts usually have higher attributes in judging a player's ability and potential.

Sorry, why would they give more than 4 stars when you have Messi in the same position??

If they gave more stars it would suggest the player would be a lot better than Messi which obviously isn't going to happen.

4 stars = similar to what you already have = excellent in your case.

I'm well aware of it thanks

The whole star-rating system needs an overhaul, how can a Coach give a player a 7 star rating for current ability, ie. a world-class player, yet give a youth player 4 stars for his potential ability when it's the same as the world-class players? It's even more bizarre when that youth player reaches his own max ability and gets 6/7 stars himself, but hang on a minute! he was only getting 4 stars 5 seasons ago!

Theres no consistency and only by playing the game for some time do you actually gain an understanding of how they work, to newcomers, it's a total mess. Who is the scout comparing the player to in order to give the player the 'comparable' star rating? I signed a young AMC and he's got a 6 star CA and PA rating, but Toulalan is there too and he's world class, he's surely not comparing this guy to Toulalan? The system needs work.